A real solution to the StarF**k virus for everyone.

[prollfin]

IMHO the problem is that people just CANNOT buy enough to satisfy game companies. I don't think they need to complain.
For example, how many games are released by EA every year? I don't know, but on their website, they got like 30 games in the list of current ones (only PC platform). And that's only EA. If EA releases about 30 games a year, how many people (buyers) are needed to match their calculations? I don't want to say anything wrong, but be shure that it's a damn lot. Germany for example (which is one of the big markets for video games), 25 million copies were sold last year (only games). That means that almost one third of all germans bought a video game. But we all know that it's far from being one third of all germans playing video games (at least, I hope that all of you know that). So 25 million copies sold is everything but "not enough".
So even with companies releasing 30 games a year, 25 million copies sold should be enough to cover every game makers expenses (again, for the german market only), because with about 500 major game releases a year (not only PC, but also consoles), every single game could sell 50.000 copies. Just think about that.
I think the main problem is that software companies just don't seem to get it that you can't make 50.000 copies with ANYTHING. If a game sucks, nobody is going to buy it, no matter what efforts it took to develope it. And I don't think you can blame the customers for that.

Edit: I too won't buy any more SF protected games. I got Codename: Panzers and Trackmania here, I had problems with both of them and I won't accept some strange STARFORCE COMPANY secretly doing something to my system I would even allow Microsoft to do...

[dajunka]

Give this a read it's worth it.


http://www.joystiq.com/entry/1234000477025364/

[Grumpy]

@dajunka
Nice find! Thanks, Its nice to know we are not alone.

[SPQR300]

I have an idea how to make cracking Splinter Cell3: Chaos Theory a lot easier. On www.direct2drive.com you can download the game for 50$. But this version has a modified Starforce3. You obviously cannot download the whole DVD with all it's hardware protections and physical structure. And u can even mount this version, since u download it to your harddrive. On other forums ppl even confirm that this version HAS a different, much milder starforce version, without serious DVD checking, only online validation system(just like Steam).The only problem is the hardware-code checking and issues on cd-keys.
Even tough this D2D service is only avaible in North-America, I think this could be the key to crack the game at last. Tricking that validating system shouldn't be so hard - Half Life 2's Steam was quite easily bypassed -. Game costs 50$ there, but some cracker groups should try my idea I think. Any opinions?

[TippeX]

steam easily bypassed? yeh right (ie: you are talking out of your arse)

[RaziBG]

I could be wrong about all this but here is my point of view.

Yup, the way it's going one day buying a PC game would even more expensive and installation - a nightmare. Sucks hard. This would probably make more and more poeple choose a console instead of a PC. This sucks even harder. This whole thing with protection and piracy is a vicious circle. Like all things it has its start. Back in the old days PC games were made by enthusiasts and without the idea of earing tons of money. Slowly but surely some poeple couldn't have helped noticing there's a lot of potential in the PC games industry, so they said to themselves: 'Hey, let's make a profit out of this.' And it began. Piracy most likely began as a way to prove onesself and without the idea to be in the way of sales. But as human beings and competition being a part of our blood, more and more 'pirates' turned up. The baby gaming industry felt threatend by these acts of 'piracy'. Here is the turning point. Instead of sitting down and thinking it over (or maybe not thinking it over enough) they decided that the solution should be game protection and higher prices. 'Pirates' see this as a challenge and the wheel started rolling. I could describe it as a game of PONG. Instead of making nice offers, publishers choose the hard way.
Example in my home country of Bulgaria: yup, piracy heaven there, accoridng to many people. True, in a way. But let's think why this is happening. People with a monthly salory of around 200 euro simply CAN'T afford to buy legal software. Let's take Windows as a subject. Instead of lowering prices a lot and thus gaining customers and some profit, the piracy hunters keep prices high and thus making poeple turn to warez and, obviously, depriving from even the little money they could have earned. In fact i DO know people who would buy 1 or 2 pieces of software either because they would like to support the deserving developers or simply to know they have at least 1 piece of legal software. In a place like this a legal copy is somewhat prestige BUT only if the prices were acceptable.
Piracy will exist as long as there's something to crack (pirateize?). Companies are trying to STOP piracy instead of trying to decrease its effect. That's the mistake. The harder you strike, the angrier your opponent will get and the harder he would try to strike back. Human nature.

Software developers and publishers DO deserve support and NOT capitalists. Today's such companies are more like capitalists than developers and publishers.

[Joe Forster/STA]

By the way,

I talked about this digital piracy stuff with my 60+ year old mom recently and she told me that, when Guttenberg invented printing, lots of people went broke because they were making a living out of copying codexes manually. With the invention of printing stuff in as many copies as needed, their work became completely redundant. (Unless you want real facsimiles, that is, but let's stick to the normal customers instead.) And, you can bet, that there were lots of copies that we would now call "bootlegs" or "pirated copies" back then, too, only there were no money-hungry monopolies and governments yet to make laws against this because the technology was too new.

She said that new technologies have changed and will change the attitude of society to acquiring/duplicating stuff. It's not a question, only a matter of time.

Joe